They called him the Messiah. His rhetoric riled up thousands, gleefully awaiting salvation from economic downturn and a hopeful denouement for American racial relations. The 8 years he spent in the Oval Office concluded in 2017, though if you ask many Americans, he’s still their president. It seems no other figure, let alone the president of the United States, has loomed quite as large over the nation as former president Barack Obama.
It may sound strange, even unbelievable, then, to consider that Obama issued his farewell address over 9 years ago. All those years ago, he took part in a tradition initiated by President George Washington as a bid farewell to national politics before his retirement — though unlike Washington’s, there wasn’t much of an “adieu” in Obama’s farewell address. The disparity between Obama the man and Obama the president becomes particularly glaring when considering this “farewell” of his. The blemished lens of hindsight becomes polished, revealing the rise of a distinctly dangerous personalism under Obama; it is one that commenced the moment he stepped off his political donkey onto the 2004 Democratic National Convention stage, and continues to be used by the caudillos we know as the 44th and 47th presidents. It is a personalism that is inherently bastardizing to the presidency, directly responsible for the caudillismo that has overtaken American politics, and the principal reason why these men say farewell, but can’t seem to say goodbye.
What’s so different?
Remember when President Obama concluded his farewell address with a warning of the danger of global terrorism? Didn’t think you did. You don’t remember because (1) you have no idea what Obama said in his farewell address, and because (2) Obama didn’t say that in his farewell address — that was President George W. Bush, and the fact that you didn’t know this is further evidence that you have no idea what either president said in their farewell address. Yet the average American is surely familiar with Obama’s “HOPE” poster, just as they remember his 2008 remarks that “We are the change that we seek,” and his 2016 directive, “Don’t boo. Vote!”
Featured Image: Source
It is apparent then that Obama’s words command unmatched influence, yet an anomaly that Americans don’t remember a lick of their favorite Democrat’s final address from the Oval Office. This may be attributed to how Obama’s farewell address is distinguished from those prior, how a noticeable shift in the personalism of the presidency came with Obama’s time in office, and how the remarks at the end of his term were simply the opening statement to the second stage of his presidency.
Take the glaring gap between the impact and stakes of Obama and Washington’s farewell addresses. Whereas Washington’s warning against the two-party system was both a prescient omen in retrospect and a statement that truly concluded his time in politics, Obama’s compromised warnings against political polarization, civic engagement, and the erosion of democratic norms that he has continued to echo at campaign rallies and conventions for almost a decade. What Washington began as a tradition dotting the “i” on a president’s administration has, at least by the time of Obama’s presidency, become but a menial transitional moment between the official power of the presidency and the immense de facto power of a former president that won’t say goodbye.
This degradation of the farewell address in both its issuance and reception bears real, preserving consequences. The stakes of a farewell address are wholly absent when you aren’t retiring to Mount Vernon, but directing the Democratic party’s agenda from Chicago. With Obama’s precedent, the farewell address has evolved into an oration inherently dissimilar to what it was intended to be, spoken by a president who will continue to be their party’s — if not the nation’s — vanguard. The receivers of the farewell address are not free from complicity either. Today we live in a socioeconomically stratified, politically polarized nation governed by a two-party system that pours nearly a trillion dollars into the military-industrial complex a year — not merely a loaded or lamentably true remark, this succinctly describes the ways in which the America of today has become the antithesis of our past presidents’ vision for the future. Today, then, the nation is led in part by a lingering former president and populated by a people tolerant of this very debasement. Recent memory tells us that this is not a harmless development.
A Tale of Two Presidents
The Roman Catholic Church was caught in a rare moment of stupefaction in February 2013, when Pope Benedict XVI resigned from the Holy See. With his resignation, he became known as the “pope emeritus”, and the first pope in seven centuries to freely abdicate — but this is not what made the event of his resignation such a confounding moment. It didn’t become much of a spectacle at all until Pope Francis’ installation the next month, for it was then that the Vatican entered an age of two popes.
Featured Image: Source
It was awkward, even unnerving at times, for the ancient institution to be doubly led, under the rivaling influence of two men who had both at one point or another been the supreme pontiff, the liaison between Catholics and God. Though Benedict XVI surrendered his papal authority, he nevertheless led a wing of splenetic conservative cardinals diametrically opposed to Francis’s neoteric direction. It is said that at times, the conflicting visions of the two popes tore the Vatican’s core and hierarchy apart.
Indeed, the Catholic Church had a fairly difficult time during its 8-year span under two popes. Since 2017, Americans have lived under a rather similar arrangement.
See, with Donald Trump’s infamous victory in the 2016 presidential election, Obama’s Democratic governance abruptly gave way to Republican rule. Yet, this realignment did not see the emergence of a new Democratic leader, nor Obama’s political departure. Obama — not Speaker Pelosi, not Leader Schumer, not Senator Sanders, and certainly not former Secretary Clinton — remained the figurehead to whom dissatisfied Americans looked during President Trump’s first administration. Thus, just as Francis and Benedict shared at least part of the “pope” title, both Trump and Obama wielded the influence of the presidency.
Obama maintained this position at the helm of the Democratic hierarchy up until 2020, when a wholly unique episode in American politics unfolded: Donald Trump lost the 2020 presidential election, Joe Biden took office soon after, and in an almost medieval fashion, the title of “Mr. President” was split between 3 warlords. Biden governed from Washington, Trump spewed his rhetoric to the citizens of Truth Social, and Obama still wielded the consolidated power and influence of a then 4-year former president.
Despite its current presentation, this was not a humorous situation. The ramifications of this 3-way split of the presidency were revealed in 2024 to be disastrous. As Trump stormed back into his status as the Republican presidential nominee, the Democrats slowly lifted their silence on worries over Biden’s fitness to even run a campaign. Upon Biden’s eventual withdrawal from the race, 3 presidents simultaneously battled: Biden and Obama for the decision of who would be the new Democratic presidential nominee, and both of them against Trump for the presidency. To no surprise, this was an internecine chaos.
What we see in that year’s party politics is a crisis only made possible by the caudillismo it was overrun with. Upon Biden’s late withdrawal from the race, his chosen heir, Vice President Harris, secured the Democratic nomination. Superdelegates and delegates alike lined up in support of Harris, and it seemed as if she had seamlessly garnered the support of the Democratic machine.
But the Democrats resoundingly lost, in no small part because of the lack of unity behind the chosen candidate. In hindsight, it can be seen that Harris lacked the backing of the one man whose support truly matters: once again, the 9-year former president, Obama. Though the incumbent president hand-selected Harris, Obama dissented — and as the 2024 election would demonstrate, the influence of the former president still reigns supreme in voters’ minds. Without the king’s blessing, Harris became by far the worst-performing candidate against Trump.
How does a party, or a nation for that matter, function when leadership is factionalized, when the “president” is just however many people refuse to take their final bow? The Republican Party, too, will come to face this crisis after the conclusion of Trump’s second term. It is unsustainable for the nation’s vision to be split in this manner, and it’s unsustainable to look to a man who no longer holds the highest office, who is no longer incentivized to respond to public sentiment or seek consensus with the various camps in the party, for this kind of vanguardship and guidance.
Both parties could avoid this predicament if our modern outgoing presidents gave a proper address that truly said and meant “farewell”.
‘Cause what we got’s too good to say goodbye
The paramount vulgarity of the modern farewell address may not be the refusal of former presidents to truly say goodbye. After all, a farewell is discursive. Just as it has to be spoken, it has to be received — and Americans, whether it’s the politicians or the voters, just can’t seem to learn to let go.
Having latched onto the chants of “Yes We Can”, the roars of “Make America Great Again”, Democrats and Republicans alike have for a decade stagnated, and the leading voice in each respective party is the same as it was at the end of 2016. Former presidents command the loyalty and will of Americans with startling success. These men, armed with their more or less populist movements, evidently refuse to bid the nation farewell — but what allows them to remain political titans is the popular support they continue to enjoy, and the willingness of voters to persistently reembrace them. In order for the power of the president to once more be temporary, voters — and the politicians who depend on them — must move on.
In 2028 — and for the first time since 2008 — the nation will be presented with a presidential election in which neither Obama nor Trump is on the ballot. Voters will have the opportunity to let go of the caudillos who’ve commanded the course of national policy for 16 long years — but it would be dishonest to suggest that the nation will cease prioritizing person over policy, suddenly abandoning the personalism that has allowed the influence of these men to take hold.
Whether it be Gavin Newsom, JD Vance, or Marco Rubio, the next president will follow in the lineage of men whose movements and influence reach beyond the 4-year term, and their farewell address will likely fit their predecessor’s mold. We may miraculously say goodbye to Trump and Obama, but the persevering power of the former president will certainly remain an embedded aspect of America’s political ethos. The personalism of the presidency took root with the decision of the voters in 2008; forgive them, for they knew not what they were doing.
Featured Image Source: The New York Times